[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

# Re: raise()

- Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 17:34:41 PDT
- From:
- Cc: moo-cows@parc.xerox.com
- Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
- In-Reply-To: <v03007804ae282a622101@[128.18.20.118]>

    On Fri, 2 Aug 1996, Richard Godard wrote:

    > One problem that I experience those days is catching errors, analyse the
    > value/message and raise() it again if I can't do anything with the value...
    > it works nicely, except the traceback that result is not as informative :(
    >
    > I was wondering if we could have a reraise() bf (or reraise; statement)
    > that would continue the raising (and error catching) process as if the
    > except clause containing the bf call/statement has not caight it?
    >
    (example snipped)

    The C++ exception-catching syntax (which was not the original basis for
    the
    MOO exception syntax) has a form of the throw statement which is of the
    form:
    throw;
    	and may only be used inside an exception handler.  This performs
    essentially what you were talking about and allows "partial exception
    handling" and other useful features.  Basically, it re-throws the
    exception that was being handled.  This might be a bit of a hack to the
    stack-unwinding syntax, but it would probably be doable and certainly
    could be useful.

    --Nick Ingolia

    ningolia@[oxygen|neon|stu].ci.lexington.ma.us
    ingolia@molbio.mgh.harvard.edu

Follow-Ups:

- Re: raise()

- From: "Robert J. Brown" <rj@eli.wariat.org>

References:

- raise()

- From: Richard Godard <janus@cam.org>

- Prev: Re: raise()
- Next: Re: raise()
- Index: MOO-cows
- Thread: MOO-cows

Home | Subject Index | Thread Index